When it comes to energy, wind and solar are the only sensible bet. Nuclear and CCS just aren’t going to cut it, and the evidence is substantial. We need the simple options that work WITH our environment, not the complex & expensive technologies that reflect the same extractive/exploitative attitudes as fossil fuels. There’s a huge amount of helpful information in this IPCC graphic (full version here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FigureSPM7.png , Guardian article here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/20/down-to-earth-ipcc-emissions?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other ). #energy #climate

@helenczerski How exactly does nuclear not cut emissions as well as wind/solar? Neither link addresses that.

@LouisIngenthron The full IPCC report does. Nuclear plants are hugely complex and resource-intensive, and there are also the carbon emissions associated with long-term storage of fuel (which has so far NEVER been done - the first real long-term nuclear storage for ANY historical waste will only come online in 2028).

@helenczerski Just read through the part of the report for nuclear and it does not explain this discrepancy. In fact, it starts with "Nuclear power can deliver low-carbon energy at scale (high confidence)".

As for the first long-term storage opening in 2028, maybe it would have come sooner if nuclear had half the subsidies that renewables have now....

@LouisIngenthron In this congressional report: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS22858.pdf you can see how the historical subsidies (at least from the DOE) stack up. Over the last 71 years, 48% of the total has gone to nuclear, and 13% to renewables. The problem with nuclear is not lack of subsidy - it’s been almost entirely bankrolled by governments throughout. And although it may be able to deliver low carbon energy, it’s extraordinarily expensive compared with anything else.

@helenczerski Last 71 years? How about the last 30?